From this article in Aviation Now (Aviation Week & Space Technology):

U. S. intelligence agencies believe China performed a successful anti-satellite (asat) weapons test at more than 500 mi. altitude Jan. 11 destroying an aging Chinese weather satellite target with a kinetic kill vehicle launched on board a ballistic missile.

The Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, NASA and other government organizations have a full court press underway to obtain data on the alleged test, Aviation Week & Space Technology will report in its Jan. 22 issue.

If the test is verified it will signify a major new Chinese military capability.

Neither the Office of the U. S. Secretary of Defense nor Air Force Space Command would comment on the attack, which followed by several months the alleged illumination of a U. S. military spacecraft by a Chinese ground based laser.

China's growing military space capability is one major reason the Bush Administration last year formed the nation's first new National Space Policy in ten years, Aviation Week will report.

"The policy is designed to ensure that our space capabilities are protected in a time of increasing challenges and threats," says Robert G. Joseph, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security at the U. S. State Dept. " This is imperative because space capabilities are vital to our national security and to our economic well being," Joseph said in an address on the new space policy at the National Press Club in Washington D. C.

Details emerging from space sources indicate that the Chinese Feng Yun 1C (FY-1C) polar orbit weather satellite launched in 1999 was attacked by an asat system launched from or near the Xichang Space Center.

The attack is believe to have occurred as the weather satellite flew at 530 mi. altitude 4 deg. west of Xichang located in Sichuan province. Xichang is a major Chinese space launch center.

Although intelligence agencies must complete confirmation of the test, the attack is believed to have occurred at about 5:28 p.m. EST Jan. 11. U. S. intelligence agencies had been expecting some sort of test that day, sources said.

To hear some people, it's only the US that is "militarizing space." Tain't so.

Oh...Em...Gee...

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

Nice, nice. When and where first orbital laser?

__________________
Sanity is overrated.
Butterfly.

Nice, nice. When and where first orbital laser?

I don't know about an orbital laser, but the above linked article did say this:

Neither the Office of the U. S. Secretary of Defense nor Air Force Space Command would comment on the attack, which followed by several months the alleged illumination of a U. S. military spacecraft by a Chinese ground based laser.

The US wants a space based laser but so far it doesn't seem likely one will be funded any time soon. There's a large model (more of a wet dream) of a space based laser hanging inside the Air Force Space Command building. That seems to be about the extent of it.

Someone pleeeeaaaaase think of the space debris!

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Nice going China. Finally figured out how to elegantly guide a device to a specific location in space to turn one piece of space junk into hundreds. They can be really proud of that achievement. /sarcasm

I think that goal of China is simple - to assure that Bush sign proper treaties about that kind of weapons in space. Wonder why USA don't want to do that...

__________________
Sanity is overrated.
Butterfly.

I think that goal of China is simple - to assure that Bush sign proper treaties about that kind of weapons in space. Wonder why USA don't want to do that..

A treaty is just a piece of paper to be discarded when inconvienent. I doubt the Chinese would spend all that money to develop an ASAT capability with the goal of getting a signature on a piece of paper. More likely, this is another weapon in their inventory to be used when they see fit.

As for the debris, preliminary indications seem to indicate hundreds of trackable pieces and probably thousands of pieces too small to consistently track. Some estimates are that the larger pieces will stay in orbit for 10 years or more.

I sincerely doubt this represents an immediate threat to US space interests. Lets face it, China can hate us all they want, but they're economically dependent on us, like it or not. This feels more like something to put in the face of the Indians and Japanese. Nations immediately bordering China, with various conflicting interests with China, that might not be so ruthless in response to an orbital attack.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

Here's a good article discussing history and utility of ASAT weapons: http://www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspac...unt_arrows.htm

Several planned or currently operational U.S. missile defense systems probably have (or will have) significant ASAT capability: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_securit...e-systems.html

There's also an article on news@nature about the potential hazard posed by this test.
Here's the link: http://www.nature.com/news/2007/0701...070115-14.html

__________________

Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.
-- Richard P. Feynman

DISCLAIMER: I'm not a native English speaker so forgive me for any grammatical/syntactical error ;)

That's why --during an extended, elevated stand-off--you time your attack during a meteor shower to mask the loss of both mil-sats.

We attacked you?

prove it.

Dunno, most meteor showers seem to go off without a hitch in orbit. Unless you're thinking about a major buncha rocks passing through, in which case, its moot, because they'll be shaking in their boots over the integrity of their orbital hardware like us.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

You know that and I know that--but it still gives them "plausable deniability"

One more reason I like Space Based Laser? It's kill is cleaner depending on the hit. Fused boards and a melted component will bead/adhere to the main bus and not go flying all over as in kinetic strikes.

Meh, just EMP it and leave it where it is. The ideal solution is to disable it in place so it's not a threat to the targeter. Lasers can always hit fueltanks or other on board combustables, and you've got debris splatter.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

Yes--but with enough power--you can snipe at ground targets.

Then who needs carriers fighters, bases, etc.?

No wonder the military hates space.

Surely much of the debris will have lost
orbital velocity?

I haven't been keeping up on my space history, so please forgive me, but has the US developed any space weapons yet that can blow up satellites? I heard somewhere that the US did develop the same thing China tested last week in the 1970s, but I have been unable to verify that claim.

Most of the USA's space weapons you see today have been around as concept or in practical tests for some time and the US hasn't built a new ICBM for decades. High altitude Nukes were detonated over the Pacific but once the public got word that nuclear tests and their fallout had entered the USA's 'food-chain' the green people started to get worried. Russians had their own cold war plans awell one of which was a Salyut space station which was to be manned with a gun and used to shoot satellites. During the 80s the US airforce tested an ASAT missile fired from an F15 to try to strike down a research satellite. Some argue GW's current missile defence plans are nothing more than the dusted off blueprints from Reagan's loved Starwars program, although its still debated how effective this missile shield will ever be.

This is why USA says that any new treaty is necessary? I see that little thing called "reputation" means for you nothing. And are you suggest that all peacy treaties, ban on nuclear weapon testing etc. are worthless? You must live on interesting, if not paranoidal, world. Good that is not my world.

Or simply both possibilities. You would be surprised how sometimes piece of paper can be powerful.

__________________
Sanity is overrated.
Butterfly.

I´d guestimate that at least half of the satllite mass will be deorbited in the next days.

__________________
What brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart

Meaningful consequences are the key. What would be the meaningful consequence of failure to comply?

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

You got the whole idea wrong.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

Depends of circumstances. You must provide concrete example, not general question.

I infer that in your opinion banning ASAT weapons would be useless?

__________________
Sanity is overrated.
Butterfly.

From BBC News :
"While the US may be unhappy about China's actions, the Washington administration has recently opposed international calls to end such tests.

It revised US space policy last October to state that Washington had the right to freedom of action in space, and the US is known to be researching such "satellite-killing" weapons itself. "

The criticism from the US does bring to mind the words pot and kettle.

Doug

Before this goes much further, I'm going to try to explain what's going on with this argument. What we have here is a dispute between two of the big schools of thought in the field of International Relations. MaDeR is representing the Liberal (or Second Image) viewpoint, while Doodler is representing the Realist (or Third Image) viewpoint. Note that "Liberal" and "Realist" are the actual names and that I am not making a value judgement.

The Liberal perspective basically says that nations can be constrained by agreements an that by educating and improving governments, war can be eliminated entirely. Treaties are usually held to because both parties benefit, even if there is a short-term benefit to abandoning the treaty and invoking retaliation.

The Realist perspective says that nations always rationally seek what is in their best interest, not nescessarily what is in the interest of humanity as a whole. Treaties can only be binding if there is force to back them up. Since there is no world government, nations themselves must provide this force. For Realists, peace cannot be achieved without radically altering the structure of the international system; treaties alone will not do. It's all about minimizing the occurance of conflict through balance of power politics.

This is a fundamental and long-running debate in IR. I don't think we're going to solve it here. Might be a good idea to steer clear from it, just in case tempers start to flare. It is politics, after all.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

Is China agreing they have made such a test , or denying it ?

Is it real ? As oppose to BS from US Military . Because we have an exploded old satellite and what other evidence ?

Some guys from China on another board were saying that the talk of space debris was simply propaganda designed to make the test look bad on China.

Yet one cant deny that this is both a very inpolite move, and potentially dangerous:

http://space.newscientist.com/articl...ce-debris.html

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...580595,00.html

Ok, now that I'm feeling a little exposed, having been read like a book...

A few notes on Doodler's Realism.

1) Force isn't necessarily military all the time (I happen to like it because its the most return for applied effort). Economic and diplomatic consequences are just peachy keen by me when applied appropriately and intelligently.

2) Its not that I don't trust anyone, but there's a force in life called "due dilligence". The benefit of the doubt lasts until the background check is complete. I believe it was best said by Reagan to Gorbachev, "We trust, but we verify".

The thing that scares me about some of these treaties is that they're founded almost entirely on fear of losing face. Without actual consequences, you get the kind of response to such courtesy treaties that the world did when the US antiballistic missile system was announced. These can be discarded on a whim at the will of a leader who doesn't care about the world's opinion.

Specific to the conversation, and to answer MaDeR, there was a ban, it was a piece of paper, and its power was illusory. What was the consequence of non-compliance? A few modestly harsh condemnations? Somehow, I don't think certain members of the US leadership were overly impressed.

As far as I'm concerned, another space weapon ban written similarly would be the same breed of jetwash. Its a fluff piece designed for public relations and the ability to say "Look, we did something". Its got all the weight of toilet paper in terms of what it will actually regulate without some kind of real penalty for non-compliance.

Make it worth their while not to do something, or make the prospect of doing it terrifying.

And yes, I mean if the world doesn't want anyone developing space weapons, I'm inviting the world to propose something that makes going forward with the development of them utterly terrifying to the US. Call me crazy, but I lived to see the end of one arms race, I really don't need a reminder.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

The US had an operational anti-satellite beginning about 1963 with a modified Nike-Zeus, called "Project 505": http://www.paineless.id.au/missiles/NikeZeus.html

The 2nd US operational anti-satellite system used a Thor missile; it was called "Program 437". Both systems used ground-launched missiles armed with nuclear warheads: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/proam437.htm

In the late 1970s, the US developed a kinetic (non-nuclear) air-launched anti-satellite weapon. It was manufactured by Vought, called the Air-Launched Miniature Vehicle (ALMV), and launched from an F-15 fighter plane. The system was fully developed and initial plans were for 100 missiles. However I don't think it was ever officially declared operational. The program was terminated in 1988, citing high costs and limited capability: http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/almv.htm

The current operational US National Missile Defense, using ground-launched interceptors based in Alaska, probably has significant ASAT capability. The official name is Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD): http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...gmd/index.html

The Navy sea-launched Aegis/LEAP (sometimes called Navy Theater Wide, now Sea-Based Midcourse Defense) is another anti-missile system with probable anti-satellite capability. It's not yet operational, don't know the current timeframe.

The Boeing Airborne Laser (ABL) is another anti-missile system with likely anti-satellite capability. It was originally planned to be operational by 2008, but development difficulties have delayed this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_laser

The bottom line is most exoatmospheric anti-missile systems inherently have some anti-satellite capability, even if that's not their main design purpose.

History and utility of ASAT weapons: http://www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspac...unt_arrows.htm

Summary of several U.S. missile defense systems with probable ASAT capability: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_securit...e-systems.html